Class Action Litigation Focused On Pre-Employment Tests

Employers that administer pre-employment physical fitness tests should take notice of Easterling, et al. v. The State of Connecticut Department of Correction, No. 3:08-CV-0826 (D. Conn. May 5, 2011), a recent ruling by Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The decision analyzes potential defenses when applicants mount a class action claiming that the pre-employment test has a disparate impact on a protected-category group.

In Easterling, the plaintiff sued the DOC when it refused to hire her as a Correction Officer (“CO”) in 2004, because she had failed one aspect of the physical fitness test - a 1.5 mile run.  Easterling brought her case as a class action against the DOC, asserting that the DOC violated Title VII by administering a physical fitness test that caused a disparate impact on the basis of sex, since the run was neither job related nor consistent with business necessity. At the time Easterling applied for a position, the DOC required that each applicant for the CO position pass both a written test and a physical fitness test.  The physical fitness test consisted of four parts, and one part was a timed 1.5 mile run.  Although Easterling passed all of the other portions of the written and physical test, she failed the 1.5 mile run.

To read this blog post click here